Preliminary Draft Metrics - Background fo Discussiom

567 views
487 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
567
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Preliminary Draft Metrics - Background fo Discussiom

  1. 1. Preliminary SOA Indicators/Metrics: A starting point for technical discussion / elaboration V 1.055 November 5, 2006 John Salasin, Ph.D. NIST 1
  2. 2. Acknowledgements While all errors of omission and commission are those of the author, comments have been provided to date by: • Navy Ocean Systems Command (NOSC) and NOSC SSC • DISA / NCES • BEA Systems • Solstice Software • Federal Chief Information Officers’ Council (CIOC), Architecture and Infrastructure Committee, Services Subcommittee • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 2
  3. 3. 1 Objectives and Assumptions To identify measures (characteristics of the application and technology) early enough in the life cycle to will influence success in later stages (Predictive Metrics). 1.1 Metrics are collected for a reason, and are based on some underlying assumptions about a system life cycle. Some of the assumptions underlying this paper are: 1.1.1 The Predictive Metrics should provide a basis for continual system-level, Verification & Validation (V&V) that includes assessing both the underlying technology and the application(s) as development proceeds. The metrics should be useful in deciding if there is, at any point in its development/evolution, a high probability that the system will meet its requirements – and a minimal risk that it won’t. Since we are emphasizing technical aspects of the system and their match to an application and its organizational context, the paper addresses only part of what V&V requires. It does not discuss, for example, traditional requirements review / validation – although this is being increasingly conducted using prototyping technology, which is discussed. 1.1.2 Since an estimated 2/3 of a systems’ cost comes after it’s initial deployment, in maintenance or evolution, many of the metrics represent factors that are likely to influence Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Thus, for example, one of the central principles of an SOA-based system is that the services and their orchestration map directly to business processes. Since many organizations undertake “Business Process Reengineering” every 12-18 months, the ease of reflecting a business process change in the SOA can have a major and continuing cost impact. A major factor impacting the ease of synchronizing the business process with the SOA is the notation used to express each. Ideally, they would be the same or could be automatically mapped to each other – representing close to zero cost. If the translation has to be done manually, costs are likely to increase dramatically and translation errors to be introduced. Similarly, the “stack” of notations, ranging from the highest level service architecture to executable code, needs to be consistent to allow automated tool assistance in refinement or in checking the correctness of manual refinements. 1.1.3 Since we are considering system evolution, including initial development, as a continuous process, rather than a discrete sequence of products / reviews (e.g., requirement documentation and review, architecture documentation and review, code documentation and review,…) the metrics should be collected when available to support decisions, rather than at pre-defined points. For example, metrics related to data should be collected when there are significant changes to the data sources being used or the structure or semantics of one or more data sources. 3
  4. 4. 1.1.4 Models are the “global invariants” of development. They must remain consistent, yet be adapted to express different levels of refinement and accuracy as design/implementation decisions are made and additional data collected. Different sets of metrics from families of similar models at different levels are needed to illuminate different views of the system – from effectiveness and efficiency at supporting the business mission (e.g., impact on business performance versus resources required) to technical concerns (e.g., response time, throughput, computer and communication resource requirements). 1.1.5 Organizational characteristics will influence both the models employed and the approaches used for building an SOA-based system. Much as the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and Integrated Capability Maturity Model (CMMI) measure organizational process (management) capabilities, different organizations, programs and systems differ in the sophistication of the approaches they use for sharing information, engineering services, or increasing their value. Models might reflect organizational characteristics according to the “Mode of Delivery” they support (“Modes of Delivery” briefing, August 8, 2006, Kshemendra Paul, Chief Enterprise Architect, US Department of Justice). These include: o Sharing Information 1. About what aspects of technology? 2. Over what domain of consumers – from a single program to the public at-large? 3. Using what mechanisms? o Enhancing service value modes: 4. Service management -- what is managed? 5. Service adoption – how is information to improve a service obtained and used? 6. Service Model – what methods used to commoditize a service to help offset operation cost? o Service provision level modes: 7. Service efficiency – how can existing artifacts, including designs, legacy systems and COTS, be used to reduce costs? 8. Engineering practice – Can the organization design a better service by moving away from ad-hoc, “one-off” designs to using more standardized and formal patterns, models or frameworks? 4
  5. 5. 2 Predictive Metrics -- Definition The aim is to identify “Predictive Metrics” -- measures (characteristics of the application and technology) that can be made early in the life cycle based on (hopefully explicit) models of the system (technology and applications(s)) and will influence success in later stages. Hopefully, these will suggest likely problems / opportunities at future stages of development / deployment and will inform decisions about corrective action. A simple, hypothetical example may help clarify what we mean. Assume that our initial concept is to avoid the cost and politics required to reconcile a number of ontologies used in separate “stovepipe” systems that are to be coordinated in an SOA-based EA system. We plan, instead, to use the SOA’s Enterprise Service Bus’ transformation capabilities to reconcile the data at run-time. Metrics that might be useful in gauging the effects of this (conceptual) design decision on system performance and development/evolution cost include: • The overhead required for translation as a function of the number of separate ontologies that must be reconciled. A high value could indicate degradation in response time or throughput (transactions/minute) as function of the number of independent ontologies (or number of data elements) that must inter-operate. • The percent of transformations required by the SOA system that can be expressed in simple scripting language (e.g., by business managers vs. programmers). A small number could indicate the need for extensive programming effort using more highly skilled individuals, increasing development cost and time. It could also indicate increased difficulty in evolving the system to account for changes in the data. It seems evident that the availability of such metrics could inform design decisions so as to avoid potential future problems. 3 Life Cycle Stages Since we do not wish to tie the metrics to any specific life cycle methodology, we discuss the metrics in terms of four (4) types of effort – which may overlap, iterate, or be conducted in parallel. We characterize these stages as: 3.1 Early stage – concept development, obtaining management support. At this point, the functions of the system and other organizations, with which it must interact are specified in general. Based on the functionality, we can estimate the scope of the services provided in terms of the number and types of consumers – from a single program to the public at-large. We can make some initial estimates of which (and how many) organizational units are performing similar functions with similar (or the same) data – 5
  6. 6. allowing us to develop plans for how technology, information, and costs might be shared. Based on these organizations’ characteristics with respect to the formality of their processes for specifying information and engineering, adapting and managing services, we can select mechanisms to foster the adoption of the services (or components of the service) by these other organizational units. This should allow us to make initial decisions about how efficiently the system can be constructed (e.g., what legacy or COTS artifacts are available) and whether the system can or should be part of an overall service framework that is based on a model driven architecture and standard design patterns, versus an ad-hoc, “one-off” effort. The organizational elements that are sites for initial implementation / demonstration have developed (at least preliminary) models of the system’s value in terms of: 3.1.1 Mission and Business Results that capture the outcomes that agencies seek to achieve and begin to identify quantitative measures of these outcomes. 3.1.2 Customer Results that capture how well an agency or specific process within an agency is serving its customers and suggest ways of measuring these results, e.g., using measures related to: • Service Coverage; • Timeliness & Responsiveness with respect to the time to respond to inquiries and requests and time to deliver products or services, and; • Service Quality, both using objective measures and based on the customer’s perspective. This includes factors such as: Service Accessibility, Customer Benefit, Customer satisfaction levels and tangible impacts to customers. • Comprehensiveness, the percent of the customers’ needs that are satisfied by the service, is an important aspect of quality. Thus, if the service is intended to provide managers with information about sales, does it provide information about sales that is restricted to a subset of products sold or a subset of sales regions, versus providing information about all sales at whatever level(s) of granularity and specificity that is desired? Does it provide the information to all customers who need it? 3.2 Architecture/Construction. A number of SOA components are being specified and implemented in this stage, including: • Services, possibly as the composition of lower-level services; • An architecture (service orchestration within an enterprise or organization, choreography across enterprises or organizations); • Infrastructure components (e.g., an Enterprise Service Bus or Portal development tools); 6
  7. 7. • Data/information and process (Service) reconciliation and integration/coordination mechanisms and tools, and; • Inter-service contractual agreements (e.g., SLAs regarding Quality of Service (QOS)). Many of the concepts developed in the early stage can be evolved into finer grained and more accurate quantitative models (e.g., of data, service interoperability, cost sharing, etc.) FEA Measurement Areas that are most significant at this stage include: 3.2.1 Processes and Activities intended to capture business results that are the direct result of the process that an IT initiative supports. These include, e.g.: • Business productivity and efficiency, • Quality in achieving financial measures related to costs of producing products and services, and costs saved or avoided, • Cycle time and timeliness to produce products or services with respect to mission requirements (“time to market”), • Assessments of management policies and procedures, compliance with applicable requirements, capabilities in risk mitigation, knowledge management, and continuous improvement and, • Security and privacy improvements in accordance with applicable policies. These measures can be estimated in the Architecture/Construction stage and validated in the Operations and Evolution stages. The estimates and data can be compared with previous efforts, or those undertaken using more traditional approaches, to assess the “speedup” provided by SOA technology. 3.3 Operations. This stage will refine the measurements / models of Processes and Activities initiated in the Architecture/Construction stage. It can begin to focus on the FEA measurement area of Technology to capture key elements of performance that directly relate to the IT initiative. This includes factors related to, e.g.: • Technology quality, regarding how well the technology satisfies functionality or capability requirements and complies with standards, • Reliability & Availability, reflected by the system’s availability to users and system or application failures, • Technology-related costs and costs avoided through reducing or eliminating IT redundancies and using COTS or re-using legacy components, • Extent to which data or information sharing, standardization, reliability and quality, and storage capacity are increased. 7
  8. 8. • Efficiency in terms of response time, interoperability, user accessibility, and improvement in technical capabilities or characteristics • Effectiveness as judged by the extent to which users are satisfied with the relevant application or system, whether it meets user requirements, and its impact on the performance of the process(es) it enables and the customer or mission results to which it contributes. 3.4Evolution – All systems must evolve based on changes in requirements or threats, policy, data availability, and equipment. In long-lived systems, this cost is estimated at 2/3 of the total lifecycle cost. The ease with which a system can be modified needs to be considered from the early conceptual stage. It will be influenced by the, e.g.: • System design (e.g., modular or layered systems are easier to modify than monolithic systems since changes can be localized) and, • Ways in which the system is represented at various levels of refinement – representations that support automated refinement or error checking will make system modification much easier. In addition, evolution includes the expansion of a system to include additional organizational units, functions, ect. The suggestion has been made that we “need to think strategically, but implement tactically”. Very few organizations are about to take the business and technical risks of adopting a “big bang” approach – going home on Friday with the old system in place and returning on Monday, after IT has spent the weekend working, with the new SOA/EA system in place. A more feasible approach is to do development tactically – concentrating on a small unit or collection of functions that needs an immediate IT upgrade – but to think strategically. This means that, from the beginning, we begin to identify functional and organizational elements that conduct some of the same functions and use the same (or highly similar) information. These are often termed “Communities of Interest (COI)”. We should begin laying the foundation for incorporating these elements after the benefits (or lack thereof) have been shown in a small number of pilot areas. [NOTE: Models and metrics estimated or measured at each stage should be refined as the system becomes more refined and better models or data are available. In addition, the specific metrics applied at each stage may be modified based on the development methodology employed and the organizational characteristics discussed in section 1.1.5.] 8
  9. 9. 4 Motivation The need for this effort is motivated by changes in business (Figure 1), Technology (Figure 2), and Standards (and terminology) that are still evolving (Figure 3). Business and Government are Changing Rapidly respond to Increased inter-organizational changes in mission, and international collaboration business strategy, organization and environment in a coordinated fashion. Tighter coupling between customers and suppliers at all stages of a product’s life Keep track of assets cycle. (including information) in dynamic organizational structures and ensure usability by all stakeholders. Monitor activity to proactively identify potential issues before they impact Provide a consistent view of productivity a customer / supplier across organizational elements 4 Figure 1 Enabling Technology is Emerging 1988 prophecy: "The network is the computer." An exploding array of services Ubiquitous web are being built by using the applications use standard software equivalent of Lego protocols for data blocks … to "mash-up," … in communication and new distributed applications on representation. multiple computers. A classic mash-up connected apartment Software is … morphing into a service (vs. a rentals on the Craigslist Web product in a box). It is being sold on-demand, site with Google Maps, creating with phased delivery, and using success based- a new Web service.. pricing Rise of transmission speeds is (having) Service registries and a revolutionary impact on how repositories manage computers are used…. The things that metadata describing used to be inside your PC now (is) data and services spread out … on a global basis," 7 Figure 2 9
  10. 10. Technologies and Standards are being applied to SOA Enterprise Architecture (EA) NOTE: SOA and EA (and sometimes WS) are often used interchangeably. Business Increasing processes, Standardization e.g., BPEL4WS, WS-BPEL, BPML, BPMN, WSFL(IBM), XLANG(MS), BPSS, BPMN,BPML Execution policy, e.g., WS-TM, 3/152006: HP, IBM, Intel SOA and Microsoft plan to WS-SecurityPolicy, WS AtomicTransaction, develop a common set of [Web Services] Standards describing how to interact with a service specifications for (e.g., WSDL), interactions between a set of services resources, WS events and (e.g., WS-CDL), locating services (e.g., UDDI) management Basic data and communication standards, e.g., IP, HTTP, URL/URI, XML. SOAP Standards have been developed by IBM, MS, SUN, W3C, OMG, and others. There is strong convergence at the bottom. Less at the top (closer to the user and specific industry). 9 Figure 3 Something needs to be done. There is a lack of agreed to and validated metrics, measurement procedures, and standards to inform system architecture/design/acquisition. Standardization is moving slowly, metrics more so. Since almost all systems require involvement of a system integrator, usually with proprietary “glue” software, to build a system, a customer needs metrics to assess alternate approaches/designs. Additionally, appropriate models and metrics can help us evaluate compliance with business policies (e.g., by determining the per cent of policies in a given area, e.g., records retention, that map to a defined service or service component. They can help us conduct more quantitative risk management, since they can assess the extent of potential shortfalls in functionality, as in the compliance example above, and performance. This effort will allow more informed system design and procurement. Early knowledge about the behavior of SOAs at scale before costly deployment should provide huge potential savings. As a secondary part of this study, we are working with Government agencies, commercial users of SOA /EA technology, SOA infrastructure vendors, and system integrators to both to refine these metrics and to determine what models / simulations are useful and feasible (for design and implementation decisions), which can be general enough to cover multiple technologies, environments, and implementations, and which could be easily modified for specific technologies. The combination of data from ongoing system development efforts and relevant controlled experiments, related to the metrics and indicators described in this paper, can provide the basis for a metrology of composable systems (specialized for Service Oriented Architectures built on Web Services). They can, in addition, provide for more objective Verification and Validation – providing quantitative 10
  11. 11. evidence if a system under development, or evolving, is likely to meet its functional and technical requirements. 11
  12. 12. 5 Document Organization Each of the following sections outlines potential metrics and measures in the 4 stages defined above: Early stage (Section 6), Architecture/Construction (Section 7), Operations (Section 8) and, Evolution (Section 9). They are categorized, where possible, by the FEA Measurement Areas: Processes and Activities, Customer Results, Processes and Activities and, Technology. We emphasize technical factors, but include some process concerns, and have an overall focus on factors that will reduce Total Cost of Ownership. 6 Early Stage Metrics (concept development, obtaining support / coordination) Metrics at this stage emphasize estimates/models of the system’s value in terms of: 6.1 Processes and Activities -- that capture the outcomes that agencies seek to achieve and begin to identify quantitative measures of these outcomes. Questions focus on the extent to which the system / system concept can be mapped to, business processes. Hypothesized impacts of this mapping include increased management support and improved co-evolution of business and system processes. Potential metrics might reflect: • Extent of explicit mappings between business and Service-oriented architecture representations. Specific measures include the percent of identified business functions and services where explicit mappings exist. • Extent of business processes visibility and formal documentation using BPN methodologies, allowing automated analyses of these processes (e.g., to detect potential halting or deadlock). Specific measures include the percent of processes and process interactions documented in a form that allows automated analysis of logical correctness (e.g., the system cannot reach undesirable states) and to support optimization/modification (e.g., to adapt to changing resources or policies). [Collection points: Initial system concept and whenever there is a major change in business process specifications or service functionality.] [Corrective Actions: Use more formal. “analyzable” notations.] • To what extent can the system effectively support capturing and reacting to business events of interest by, e.g.: o Triggering businesses processes in response to detected events (both possibly outside the SOA)? Specific measures include the percent of anticipated external “effector components” that the system can “talk to” and the amount of effort involved in writing triggering code. Is there a simple scripting language? How long does it take to learn? o Capturing arbitrary business events? Specific measures include the number / percent of business events (e.g., sales last hour) in addition to system events (e.g., percent of messages delivered) 12
  13. 13. that the monitoring process, usually part of the ESB) can capture, the overhead involved, and the effort involved in writing this monitoring code. Is there a simple scripting language? How long does it take to learn? o What effort is required to specify rules / processes for the above? High effort (e.g., based on the absence of simple scripting languages) is likely to increase development and maintenance costs and decrease flexibility as business rules change. [Collection points: Initial system concept and changes in “events of interest”] [Corrective actions: Buy, buy and modify, or build infrastructure that provides needed triggers and appropriate scripting language(s).] • Does the system have the capability to identify key aspects of processes or activities that need to be monitored and/or improved? Potential measures include estimates, based, wherever possible, on quantitative models, of expected improvements in: o (User) productivity and efficiency; Quality of information provided with respect to appropriate accuracy, depth, breath, and timeliness (What percent of information needed for key decisions is the system planned to provide? How many levels and types of users is the system designed to accommodate with tailored processes, interaction mechanisms, and output formats?) o Achieving financial measures related to direct and indirect total and per unit costs of producing products and services and costs saved or avoided. (Does the system concept include provisions for collecting, aggregating and analyzing data relevant to a mission’s “bottom line”? Since agency missions are often multi-dimensional, what percent of these dimensions allow automated data collection and analysis and reporting with respect to accomplishment of objectives in an effective and efficient manner?) o Providing information useful for improving management policies and procedures, compliance with applicable requirements, risk mitigation, knowledge management (collection and dissemination), and continuous process/product improvement. (What percent of the information elements that managers typically use for assessing agency or program policies is provided by the system? Can a manager easily define triggers to alert her to (business) policy violations? How much effort and training are required?) [Collection points: Initial system concept, which could define indicators or “warning signals” for faulty processes and whenever processes or the definition of important indicators are changed] [Corrective action: Instrument system and data use, collect customer feedback, analyze with respect to business process outcomes.] 13
  14. 14. One more global evaluation of the cost/benefit of an SOA-based system (which could fit in either Section 6.1 or 6.2) Is based on a library-science technique called the ‘Critical Incident Technique”. In this technique a decision maker(s) is asked to recall the last information request he (or she) had to respond to that: • Cut across organizational or system lines (necessitating information location and, possibly, transformation to a standard format and definition. • Required a reasonably timely response. • Required information analysis for summarization/aggregation, analyses of similarities and differences (e.g., by geographical region, disease). Concentrating on one incident will allow more specific responses than would asking about, e.g., all information requests in the last 6 months. Averaging multiple responses can provide a more comprehensive picture. For each request, we collect information about: • Date of request – assume that period between request date and information collection date is ½ the inter-request interval – a reasonable assumption if request frequency has a uniform distribution. • Number organizational elements contacted and number of of separate data stores accessed. • Effort (time) required to collect and transform the data – including time to negotiate access to other organizations’ data, transform the data to a common format and definition, and collect the data. This should include effort needed for any necessary computer programming. • Time period from request to data/report production – latency in response. • Estimated comprehensiveness of data obtained – comprehensiveness. • Estimated costs to consumer of latency or lack of comprehensiveness (e.g., extra hospital days, students not learning to read, sewerage overflows into streams, soldiers killed or territory lost). These figures allow us to estimate the current cost of fragmented data systems. They can be important in justifying system modernization. Repeating the measures in Section 8, “Operations”, can provide evidence of progress. 6.2 Customer Results capture how well an agency or specific process within an agency is serving its customers and suggest ways of measuring these results, e.g., using metrics/models related to: • Service Coverage, • Timeliness & Responsiveness with respect to the time to respond to inquiries and requests and time to deliver products or services, • Service Quality, both using objective measures and based on the customer ’s perspective. This includes factors such as: Service Accessibility, Customer Benefit, Customer satisfaction levels and tangible impacts to customer • In the Early Stage, these will be estimates of how well (and how much better) the system will serve its users. Potential metrics include: o Usability measures related to the targeted tasks (e.g., from helping citizens evaluate health care options to supporting time critical 14
  15. 15. targeting decisions in the military). Specific measures include the amount of time / training required for intended users to learn targeted tasks, possibly based on experiments with prototype user interfaces. The estimated cost of modifying interacting components to interoperate so that the customer is presented with an integrated picture of the situation. o Accessibility measures. Specific measures include the time/effort required for a customer to reach a location where they can access the service, the length of time and amount of knowledge required to “sign on”, the required knowledge and training, as compared with that possessed by the intended customer(s). o Comprehensiveness measures related to what fraction of the targeted task is addressed by the system (e.g., using a single sign- on). Does a user need to log on to a separate system to complete a task (e.g., providing a user with information about health care options, but requiring them to access (possibly multiple) other systems to get information about available health care plan benefits and costs)? Specific measures include the percent of a typically integrated series of functions that the system supports in a given session. [Collection points: These measures should be collected either periodically and/or when there are significant changes in the services being delivered or the user population] [Corrective action: Early and extensive prototyping of customer/system interaction, including the number of separate systems (or people) that must be accessed to perform task.] 6.3 Processes and Activities – how well (or how much better) do we estimate that the system will capture and analyze data that contribute to or influence outcomes that are Mission and Business Results and Customer Results? Many measures related to this were discussed in terms of how well the system effectively supports capturing and reacting to business events of interest (Section 6.1) and how well it supports its users (Section 6.2). The FEA Performance Reference Models (PRM) groups Security and Privacy in the category of Processes and Activities, This is a subset of the general issue of specifying and enforcing operating policies. While the Early Stage of development cannot provide measures of actual performance in this area, it can assess the capabilities that are required and those expected to be provided by candidate COTS SOA infrastructures. These include consideration of whether the system concept includes the capability for the organization responsible for a service (or an enterprise) to specify, monitor and enforce all policies of concern to the organization (e.g., regarding security, data formats, allowable values or sequences of events) using simple scripting languages rather than 2- or 3-GL programming. 15
  16. 16. Potentially useful measures include: • The percent of policies that can be easily specified monitored and enforced. • The percent of critical policies where significant effort/skill is needed for specification, monitoring and enforcement. Related measures are the expected effort and level of skill required to develop rules for specifying and enforcing policies related to allowed, e.g.: • Workflows, process sequences, pre- and post-conditions • Data or commands that can be accesses/executed by specific users/systems • Data formats, value(s), source(s) • Data (or information) content standards (for input and output) • Data and process privileges (security) • Communication (or “hook-up”) privileges • Quality of service agreements [Collection points: Models and data should be estimated as part of infrastructure technology evaluations, revisited during system design and implementation, and re-collected when policies are changed.] [Corrective action: Buy, buy and modify, or build capabilities for formally expressing policies, including those for security and trust, and link to triggering mechanisms to detect and prevent violations.] 6.4 Technology During the Early Stage of development, a primary concern is whether models are in place to predict factors such as Quality (The extent to which technology satisfies functionality or capability requirements or best practices, and complies with standards); Reliability & Availability (including capacity, availability to users, and system or application failures); System cost (Total Cost of Ownership over the system’s anticipated lifetime including costs avoided through reducing or eliminating IT redundancies); Information (system capability to support information & data sharing, standardization, reliability and quality, and storage), and Behavior and Performance (e.g., response time, interoperability, user accessibility, and improvement in other technical capabilities or characteristics). Questions that should be answered at this stage include: • Do we have applicable system models (e.g., of scalability, response time, resource use, recovery from anomalies. overhead for rule monitoring and enforcement)? Have these models been validated on similar systems? Do they include the (often considerable) overhead required for such things as security, run-time routing and transformation operations, etc.? • What is the margin of error in our system models? Given this margin, are we satisfied that the system will meet requirements using current or planned hardware (it’s a little early for ironclad assurances)? 16
  17. 17. • What percent of services have performance requirements (Service Level Agreements – SLAs) specified? • Can we estimate the systems’ Total Cost of Ownership and benefits? What is the estimated range of effort to change policy rules, services, and service orchestration, add various types of data sources, trigger new reports, etc.? How quickly can this be accomplished? What are the actual and opportunity costs for the time required to modify the system? • How does this estimated TCO compare with that of existing systems? This might be determined using costing by analogy, since it’s too early to use detailed parametric models or evolving Function Point Analyses techniques at a high level of granularity. [Collection points: At development of early conceptual models, revisited and validated (or changed) in the Architecture/Construction stage and periodically during Operations.] [Corrective action: Refine models, prototype, identify system representations that provide more automated support for automated translations among or refinement of notations.] 6.5 Evolution – All systems must evolve based on changes in requirements or threats, policy, data availability, and equipment. The ease with which a system can be modified needs to be considered from the early conceptual stage. It will be influenced by the, e.g.: • System design (e.g., modular or layered systems are easier to modify than monolithic systems since changes can be localized) and, • Ways in which the system is represented at various levels of refinement. In addition, we consider evolution to include the expansion of a system to include additional organizational units, functions, ect. This means that, from the beginning, we begin to identify functional and organizational elements that conduct some of the same functions and use the same (or highly similar) information. We should begin laying the foundation for incorporating these elements after the benefits (or lack thereof) have been shown in a small number of pilot projects. Many of the factors that facilitate the spread of a system (or system-of-systems or EA) across an organization are involved in the “fit” of system components (services) to higher levels of organizational structure and to the “two way” potential of the SOA system incorporating (reusing) existing components and of the larger organization reusing components developed for the SOA. The first two elements increase an organization’s confidence, while the latter provides some immediate benefits to organizational components not participating in pilot studies. While most services/SOAs will be developed incrementally (e.g., to support one function at a time), effectiveness and efficiency require that the services are consistent with an overall organizational framework. 17
  18. 18. Potentially useful measures, whose collection/estimation begins in the Early Stage and carries forward to design, construction, and operation, include the percent of organizational elements or system components that have been analyzed to determine how many, e.g.: • Map to a more global Functional Architecture? • Conduct the same, or extremely similar, functions (e.g., processing electronic payments) at the lowest level of granularity? • Use, or could use, the same specifications/design for software components that execute these functions (at least within specified “communities of interest”)? • Use the same, or extremely similar, data elements, data definitions? [Collection points: Early concept development, whenever changes in the scope of the “enterprise” that the system serves are contemplated/made.] [Corrective action: Improve alignment of proposed system (architecture and data) with enterprise functional organization and policies.] Other measures are likely to impact services’ or components’ potential for reuse, the cost and time to evolve an enterprise-wide coordinated system, and plans for reconciling data and functional specifications before the system is “turned on” or adapting to the overhead required for run-time transformations. Measures include: • How many (what percent of) infrastructure components and business services will come from reuse of existing assets? This will impact: cost of development, confidence in procedures / algorithms, feasibility of incremental development and deployment. • How feasible is incremental development / deployment? What is the effort required to “wrap” and incorporate legacy systems (as a function of the legacy systems themselves and the foundation SOA infrastructure)? This may impact development time and cost, and the feasibility of incremental development. • Are proposed new services actually reusable (what number and percent are reusable, in how many contexts)? This can impact reduction in development and maintenance costs, uniformity of processes across organization. Indicators of reusability include: o How many of the lowest level components/services are of fine enough granularity to be incorporated in multiple higher level services? o How many organizations / functions use (or plan to use) these low level components? o How many other organizations / functions have made (at least) a conceptual buy-in to the concept? 18
  19. 19. • What tools are available to identify and rationalize duplicative data sets (e.g., by analyzing the statistical distribution of data, by using data flow analysis to identify the (original) data source). [Collection points: Estimated during initial concept development, refined whenever services are developed (or reused) and each time system is expanded to include more organizational elements, data sources, or services] [Corrective action: Acquire and use tools for organizational data flow analysis, component repositories, data set analysis and reconciliation.] Since business processes (and the SOA representing them) may change faster than long-lived instances of a process (e.g., tracking international nuclear non- proliferation efforts), is there a capability to run some tasks under the old process and some under the new process and have them communicate/coordinate as needed? How much effort is required to specify and implement this capability? [Collection points: Estimated during initial technical evaluations, tested during Architecture/Implementation, validated when capability is needed during Operations and Evolution.] [Corrective action: Select infrastructure with needed Business Process Management capabilities.] 19
  20. 20. 7 Architecture/Construction In this stage an organization is refining requirements, conceptual designs, and models from Early Stage activities. It is developing detailed specifications of Services/components, and is building or buying those components needed to flesh out the design, providing the ability to further refine and validate models used in the Early Stage. Many of the models and metrics developed at this and succeeding stages are based on elaborating or refining the models and estimates/data from the preceding stages. An important metric is: How much effort/cost is required to update the models/data? Ideally, the tools used to produce more specific representations of the system, or the languages/notations used to describe these representations, could automatically update the models. Models and metrics estimated or measured at each stage should be refined as the system becomes more refined and better models or data are available. In addition, the specific metrics applied at each stage may be modified based on the development methodology employed. 7.1 Mission and Business At this stage, we can examine the fit of the proposed system to business needs more closely. In addition to refining models/estimates made in the Early Stage, we can assess the extent to which the system supports consistent co-evolution of business and technical processes. This might include metrics related to whether, e.g.: • Hierarchic designs are sufficiently linked, and refinement rules specified, so that a change at one level of a business or service architecture specification is reflected in the complementary architecture and at all other levels in the architecture where the change was made? Specific measures include: o The effort and skills needed to reflect a change in a service / service architecture specification or a business process in the complementary representation. o The effort involved in identifying what changes need to be made and writing code to change processes or process orchestration. Is there a simple scripting language?  How long does it take to learn?  What percent of changes processes or process orchestration does it encompass? • Does a machine interpretable service architecture specify important service behavior, connection requirements and constraints? o What percent of requirements and constraints are included? o How much time, and what level of technical skill, is required to specify the monitoring of business variables in addition to those describing system performance? 20
  21. 21. • Does the system include probes, or the ability to insert probes, to monitor services and connectors with respect to specified requirements and constraints? o What percent of requirements and constraints are included? o How much time, and what level of technical skill, is required to specify the monitoring of business variables in addition to those describing system performance? 7.2 Customer Results Work in this area focuses on refining earlier estimates and, possibly, testing prototype implementations developed in this stage. 7.3 Processes and Activities These measures are intended to capture the outputs that are the direct result of the process that an IT initiative supports. Since we are beginning to implement the system in the Architecture/Construction stage, we may be able to measure the impact of subsystems, if not the system as a whole. Some potential measures were described in Section 5.3. With respect to Policy / Security concerns, we should be able to measure, e.g.: • What tools are available for monitoring rule conformance and what percent of rules can be monitored using these tools? • Is policy adherence automatically monitored and does non-adherence trigger appropriate action (including, if required, restoration to an earlier state). • Can the SOA accommodate non-symmetrical security (e.g., for data sharing) and trust (e.g., belief in data validity) relationships. 7.4 Technology The system cannot support business requirements unless it is sufficiently robust. This requires, for example an adequate system-wide backup and recovery mechanism? Potential measures include: • What is the recovery time under various failure scenarios? • How much information can be recovered under various failure scenarios? • The ability to specify configuration rules, including those for sequencing transformations and saving and restoring state information. (For what percent of error or “out of bounds” conditions do such rules exist? What is the effort and skill set required to write them? Are there provisions for defining atomic transactions within and across services and conducting appropriate “roll-backs” to handle errors? • How much effort is required to use (or adapt) the same mechanisms used for measuring system SLAs to monitor specified business variables –e.g., daily sales? 21
  22. 22. Other important questions relate to system performance and scalability, e.g.: • What is impact do various configurations and different environments have on performance? • Can we do model-based testing sensitive to the deployment configuration? • Can the models demonstrate the system is scalable with respect to size (number of processes, users, data stores, data throughput), required response times and, the number and variety of systems with which it can collaborate/ interoperate? • For what percent of (anticipated or feasible) process flows is component assembly and business process flow tested in addition to functional tests on individual components/services? • Do tests look at activity outside the application being developed and examine interactions among all components in a total business process (i.e., “out of the box”). What percent of “out of the box” interactions are tested? • How complex is the specification of data movement / migration / caching / persistent storage? If it is incorporated as part of a service (no additional specification required) rather than as a rule in the SOA infrastructure, every change will require reprogramming the service. • What services does the SOA Service Bus provide automatically (no specification required)? • How long does it take to learn any additional specification notations / languages that are required? • Are mechanisms for data movement and storage scalable with respect to size (number of processes, users, data stores, data throughput), required response times and, the number and variety of systems with which it can collaborate/ interoperate? • How comprehensive are (possible) rules regarding data acceptability or transformation? • What percent of component interfaces are tested incrementally as the components are added to the overall integration architecture? • How are multiple data conflicts expressed / resolved (e.g., 4-5 synonyms with slightly different data definitions)? (Indicates possible limitations on system complexity / size.) • How many versions of a “common” data item can be stored and referenced to service data stores / files? • Does the planned SOA infrastructure include negotiation tools for “self integration”? o What features are included in negotiation process (e.g., XML representation of data signature, process representation (formal or informal), process/service availability, operation on unique hardware resource, estimated time to complete task)? o What features are missing for a component to effectively and efficiently find and use (hook up with) a service it needs? 22
  23. 23. • Does information exchange use single messages (possibility making it more difficult to specify multi-step transactions), exchange of messages in a sequence, or data transfer using an industry standard (e.g., XML, HTTP, COM, DCOM) or other open formally specified) protocols? • Can a process/service be replaced without changing its interface? o What is assembly cost? How much “glue code” (e.g. the ESB) needs to be written / modified manually? 8 Operations While the system is likely to undergo continuous revision based on policy and technology changes and on customer feedback, substantial segments are now operational. We can now refine estimates and models developed in previous stages as well as measuring actual user satisfaction and system performance. 8.1 Mission and Business Results Indicators in this area have been described in sections 5.1 and 6.1. We can now collect real data with respect to these indicators. Actual outputs (e.g., claims processed per day, at-risk patients identified, time between a warning indication of enemy attack and response) can be measured. These are, of course, idiosyncratic to the specific program. Another primary indicator of the system’s success in contributing to business objectives is whether it is used. Potential indicators include: • The number and percent of potential users who are using (and funding) services. Plotting this as a function of time can identify trends in user acceptance (and impact on business objectives). o Is the “consumption of services” by other organizational elements in the enterprise tracking earlier predictions? o Can we detect a decrease in the rate at which separate application architectures targeted at the same functions are being developed? What is it? • How many (and what percent) of customers are using the system to evaluate business rules and policies with respect to, for example, consistency, uniform application, and impact on outcomes? How does this compare with organizations that are not employing an EA/SOA-based system? 8.2 Customer Results In addition to the usage metrics above: • Can it’s usability by all involved personnel (from warehouse data entry to business professionals (not systems professionals) who configure rules and processes) be assessed? • How long does it take an employee to become self sufficient in performing their SOA-related task(s)? • How much effort/skill is needed for testing new rules and processes (in the context of the entire SOA) before incorporation? 23
  24. 24. 8.3 Processes and Activities It may be possible to measure system outputs, or trends in these outputs, at this stage. As described in the FEA PRM, these include improvements in: • Productivity and Efficiency • Error rates and complaints related to products or services. • Direct and indirect total and per unit costs of producing products and services, and costs saved or avoided. • Cycle Time and Timeliness • The ability to evaluate management policies and procedures, compliance with applicable requirements, capabilities in risk mitigation, knowledge management, and continuous improvement. • Security and Privacy 8.4 Technology New technology measures that be collected during the operations stage include: • Robustness, as described above (Section 7.4). • Effort required to specify, monitor compliance, and define / invoke corrective action for Level of Service contracts. • Ability of and effort required to define checks for erroneous results (e.g., by defining acceptable ranges or alternative algorithms). • Ability and effort required to specify (re)deployment of services to nodes for load balancing. • The percent of services that have SLAs automatically monitored and corrective action taken as needed. • Performance in various configurations and environments. • Operational failure rate (e.g., MTTF). • Stability under changes in individual services components, service orchestration, and varying load levels. • Are tools being used to identify conflicting (technology) policies within and across services? These should explicitly include capabilities for defining and monitoring SLAs, and for either adapting the system or “gracefully degrading” the SLAs to ensure priority tasks are completed. A useful metric might be the percent of services (at all levels of aggregation) where this the case. • Assuming the existence of an “Integration Competency Center (ICC)” to specify, e.g., naming conventions, tool usage, interfaces, etc.,: o What percent of messages are governed by ICC rules? o What percent are automatically checked at design time? At run time? 9 Evolution It is necessary, over the system’s lifetime, to continually evaluate the factors outlined above. It now becomes possible, in addition, to determine whether the system representation(s) used and tools provided make it easy to modify the 24
  25. 25. system or to expand it to include more functions in the “enterprise”. Specific measures of interest include: • How much effort is required to specify a new monitoring capability – e.g., for a new business variable? • How much effort is required to integrate a new service component (e.g., an additional credit check)? • How much effort is required to mirror a change in business processes (e.g., by changing orchestration or choreography)? • Are there checks on policy consistency / applicability when system changes are made? o Are these (partially) automated? o Is their a scripting language? How much effort is required to learn and apply? • Can the system adapt to the use of various processes, terms, definitions and, vocabularies across the enterprise? (Indicates possible limitations on system complexity / size.) o What percent of these items are expressed in machine interpretable / analyzable representations ((e.g., BPMN, BPMEL, ER diagrams, ontologies, rule bases) o Are tools (e.g., services directory / repository) available to help? How much do they reduce the effort? o Does configuration management reflect changes to the system (e.g., is it dynamic)? How much effort is required to identify and register these changes? 10 Conclusion This paper is a work in process. It has been prepared as a “strawman” to elicit comments and suggestions from Government and Industry on: • The validity of the indicators – are they predictive? Are some irrelevant? • Better ways of quantifying the indicators; • Anecdotal examples of situations where the existence of a condition has (or has not) had a favorable (or unfavorable) impact; • How a metrology developed around these indicators/metrics might be most useful in Program/Project management – particularly with respect to ongoing Verification and Validation (V&V). • Experiments that might provide benchmark data indicating expected ranges for different values and predict their impact on system performance, utility, and TOC. 25

×